[Longknife]

  
REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

Lemme explain what I mean here a sec.


First off, I'll start by saying that, I never HAVE been given a clear definition of communism that wasn't blatantly against it AND had good enough backup to prove why they're so blatantly against it. At most I'd get something like "it's evil" or "it's a way for government to control the people," but I'd never actually get an explanation as to how and why it's evil, or how it works to control the people. From what I've gathered for myself so far, I've just figured it was a good idea on paper that ended up really flunking when actually put to the test. Since it was a failure, I've always just chose to look the other way when people insist on putting communism and evil in the same sentence.




Second, I was wandering around youtube like I normally do, and just came across a video titled "Why are YOU a Republican?" The video was a democratic student who had just got done watching some bill to help give financial aid for university students get turned down, and was frustrated, sad, and confused, asking republicans why they ARE republicans, seeing as the reason that bill she wanted got turned down was mainly because of the republican party. Among the comments, I found this:

republicans core values (whether all of them stick to these or not is debatable) are low taxes (i.e. GWs tax cuts throughout his terms), life not death (i.e. roe vs. wade), and equal opportunity for success for all, but no rewards and free govt. handouts for failure. the democrats believe the rich should bear the greater tax burden because they have more money, well they work harder. stealing (taxing) the rich to give to the poor (welfare, food stamps) has a name and it is called communism.

Feeling like communism was out of place there, I decided I'd see what my momma thought...cuz she my momma. O:

ZOMGTooMuchVodka sagt:
Ok so

Jane sagt:
yes?

ZOMGTooMuchVodka sagt:
Why do people always talk like communism = evil?

Jane sagt:
because, communism is different than socialism. communisim is really what george bush wants

Jane sagt:
total control over the people

ZOMGTooMuchVodka sagt:
"republicans core values (whether all of them stick to these or not is debatable) are low taxes (i.e. GWs tax cuts throughout his terms), life not death (i.e. roe vs. wade), and equal opportunity for success for all, but no rewards and free govt. handouts for failure. the democrats believe the rich should bear the greater tax burden because they have more money, well they work harder.

ZOMGTooMuchVodka sagt:
stealing (taxing) the rich to give to the poor (welfare, food stamps) has a name and it is called communism. "

Jane sagt:
nope

ZOMGTooMuchVodka sagt:
The word is tossed EVERYWHERE with a negative connotation, and I really doubt anyone in the world actually still remembers what meaning it should hold

Jane sagt:
the republicans say they aren't for higher taxes. What they do is give bigger tax breaks to the rich and let the middle class carry the financial burden

Jane sagt:
obama wants to resind some fo the huge tax breaks that bush gave to the rich so that our economy won't tank so badly

Jane sagt:
Perhaps we should look at somewhere else where they recently used the time-old bribe of tax cuts, and see how it worked. In 2000, George W. Bush, under the reasonable sounding 'compassionate conservatism', offered huge tax cuts. And he delivered. Take a look at America now. The rich are certainly richer, but the economy is in the tank, a healthy surplus has been converted into a massive deficit, a

Jane sagt:
just found this quote by an actor I was reading about. good explanation of republicans

Jane sagt:
Communism doesn't really give to the poor. they give barely enough to get by on and the powerful keep most to themselves

Basically what I've gathered is, both parties would gladly slander the other with the title of communism, and even with the title of biggest tax-giver.




So what the hell: Am I the only one that feels that some things have lost all meaning and definition, such as communism and taxes? As I said to my mom, the words are tossed EVERYWHERE with a negative connotation, and I really doubt anyone in the world actually still remembers what meaning the words should hold.


So yeah, there's the question: What is communism, and why is it SO taboo if we're in any way, any way AT ALL similar to communism for even a moment? Right now I feel like it's just a word tossed in place that's supposed to make everyone shut up and stop catching on, but in reality it's just a word for shock effect and to scare the opposing debator off. It's been tossed in there for universal health care, taxes, education, and God I dunno how many other issues. It's "evil," but it seems like no one quite knows why it's "evil."



So what is it people: What IS communism?






Yes, I realize that's more of a question, but I decided to post it in the debates forum simply because 1) I feel the community in this forum will have more to add 2) I feel a debate could stem from this, whether it be about communism, or something between the Democratic and Republican parties. (Both are welcome, since yeah, I am leaving you guys with somewhat of a loose end, here... xP ) If this thread does end up being just a simple Q&A, then wtf sorry. xD



Bonus Pretzel:

I am not a republican, but generally vote that way. It is mostly because I believe in the constitution and the founding fathers ideals, that the government should mostly stay out of the way. The people who founded this country likely would have been republican. The idea of universal health care and the government controlling everything is a communist/fascist idea, which is the idea of most democrats, I believe in freedom, choosing stuff for myself, not have the gov. choose 4 me, thats y i voteR

[Moshineko]

Communism = living in a communal manner, with resources shared among all. As opposed to capitalism, where resources are not shared out, but left to those who earn them.


Democratic ("little d")= a system of power in which a referendum is taken for major decisions. One of the worst ideas known to man.

Republic = chosen representatives (chosen by different means, voting, oligarchy, chosen by council, etc.) make decisions on behalf of the people.

Republicans used to believe in what we now think of as "Constitutionalism", following the Constitution to the closest possible extent, having a small federal government, with few services and benefits. Democratic folks ("big D") believe in a more socialist government, with more federal government, more benefits, what Hazel and I would probably derisively call a "nanny state".


Republicans should be economic conservatives, but not social conservatives. I.E., they should believe in "lower taxes, less government", but not "right to life, gays are bad". True Republicans could give a shit less if you screw your gay partner with an aborted fetus that came from a group marriage, as long as the marriage and abortion weren't payed for by the state.

Democrats tend to want to paint Republicans as social conservatives, and thus the Republican party gets stuck with the support of fundamentalist groups, but, much like the Democrats, 99% of Republicans aren't as crazy as we think they are.

In reality, these days? Not much difference between the parties (notice I don't say between the philosophies, both are still quite different), as the democratic side of the U.S. has taken over to an unhealthy degree, and "The People" are kowtowed to, instead of being called out for numerous poor decisions.

U.S. is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Representatives are chosen by popular vote, and make decisions on behalf of the people.

So, yeah, nothing ever gets called what it really is, and never probably has. Ever since the word "Barbarian" (from "bar bar", or the sound that dogs made, as the Romans thought that germanic and celtic speech sounded like dogs barking), and probably long beofre that, terms have been subverted for use as emotional and political tools.

So that now, "Republican" brings up images of grumpy, church-going old mens and womens lynching black folks, and "Democrat" brings up images of gay, pot-smoking hippies living on welfare. Neither one is true, neither one is fair, but try telling that to anyone.

[Longknife]

Originally Posted by Moshineko

Communism = living in a communal manner, with resources shared among all. As opposed to capitalism, where resources are not shared out, but left to those who earn them.


Democratic ("little d")= a system of power in which a referendum is taken for major decisions. One of the worst ideas known to man.

Republic = chosen representatives (chosen by different means, voting, oligarchy, chosen by council, etc.) make decisions on behalf of the people.

Republicans used to believe in what we now think of as "Constitutionalism", following the Constitution to the closest possible extent, having a small federal government, with few services and benefits. Democratic folks ("big D") believe in a more socialist government, with more federal government, more benefits, what Hazel and I would probably derisively call a "nanny state".


Republicans should be economic conservatives, but not social conservatives. I.E., they should believe in "lower taxes, less government", but not "right to life, gays are bad". True Republicans could give a shit less if you screw your gay partner with an aborted fetus that came from a group marriage, as long as the marriage and abortion weren't payed for by the state.

Democrats tend to want to paint Republicans as social conservatives, and thus the Republican party gets stuck with the support of fundamentalist groups, but, much like the Democrats, 99% of Republicans aren't as crazy as we think they are.

In reality, these days? Not much difference between the parties (notice I don't say between the philosophies, both are still quite different), as the democratic side of the U.S. has taken over to an unhealthy degree, and "The People" are kowtowed to, instead of being called out for numerous poor decisions.

U.S. is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Representatives are chosen by popular vote, and make decisions on behalf of the people.

So, yeah, nothing ever gets called what it really is, and never probably has. Ever since the word "Barbarian" (from "bar bar", or the sound that dogs made, as the Romans thought that germanic and celtic speech sounded like dogs barking), and probably long beofre that, terms have been subverted for use as emotional and political tools.

So that now, "Republican" brings up images of grumpy, church-going old mens and womens lynching black folks, and "Democrat" brings up images of gay, pot-smoking hippies living on welfare. Neither one is true, neither one is fair, but try telling that to anyone.

Barbar is actually the German word for barbarian. :V



Anyways, it pisses me off. Point is we have a sample of both partys throwing the word communism out there just because they know it has negative connotation; not because there's any logical connection between taxes and communism, universal healthcare and communism, or anything else for that matter.


And I mean it scares me wtf. Technically, I knew the definition of communism, but I've heard it used falsely SOOOOO much, that I began to doubt if I did know it and made this thread. And honestly, I still haven't heard an logical explanation as to why communism is "evil."


Plus it's like...when you look at the definition of democratic and republican...I dunno about everyone else, but I'm fine with both, and see a reason to fight for both. Republicans don't want the government having power, simply because yes, that can lead to problems. Democrats don't see the need to worry so much about it and throw trust to the government, and instead try to form the government in such a way that helps make the country run more comfortable/efficiently. That's how I see it.

Germany for instance...some of the things here would scare the shit out of people, and they're probably more on the democratic side. For one, a national ID card. Well...so what? I've got one (technically. I don't have an actual one since this office told me there's no need for an ID card AND a passport, and the passport is basically the same as the ID card). I don't have fear that Germany's gonna use that against me. Why would they? It simply helps the government identify me as some average joe quicker so that I can enter the country/go inside a club/help police realize "nah he di'in't dew eet" and let me continue on my way FASTER. The US would be more republican in this manner, and they still argue against the idea. They don't want the government having a profile on them instantly, cause it makes them feel uncomfortable. Still, this can make some processes longer.
Germany is also trying to take a step against climate change with, yes, government involvement. Dunno the details (haven't heard enough), but from what I understand, Germany has a couple years to find an alternative energy source and start using it, or...too bad: lights go out. No more fossil fuels for Germany. Definitely democratic, as the republican view wouldn't like the government telling them they can't use electricity cause they haven't found a cleaner energy source. (btw, don't worry. Germany's doing pretty good with it. We got wind power out the ass)
Second, another example can be seen in bank accounts. On a more democratic system, all transactions are via bank accounts, you simply give a business permission to take out their monthly payment annually, and trust them not to be stupid and try to rob you. Besides, if they do, I've got the transaction records, and it's only a matter of time til I'll have my money back. More comfortable for the more laid back, but could give some people worries. On a republican system, let's just go ahead and fill out a check every month, rather than just giving a business permission to fiddle with my bank account. More annoying for some, but for others it'll calm some nerves.




But how is it today? Democrats are hippie pussys who hug trees, republicans are crazy christians who are quick to the trigger. The sad thing is, it's not out of slander...there's some truth to these. I know tons of crazy Christian republicans, and yes, I, a Democrat, don't believe in resorting to war, and I do believe in Global Climate Change; yes it's a theory, but I'd much rather take precautions than daunter and think "meh but it isn't one hundred percent..." I mean c'mon, the last few times when war WAS neccesary, was because Germany had one of their episodes, and they didn't quite understand that bombs don't make for very good gifts, especially when dropped. It seems we've taught Germany to calm down a bit since then. North Korea also seems to be taking his meds lately, and the Middle East....well wtf let them just fight each other and let's just make sure they stay away from us.



Really sad but, all these things are losing their meanings. What should be "more comfortable" (democratic) and "more safe" (republican) in my mind has become "Pls don't be telling lies like everyone else...just pls..." (democrats and Obama) and "what...the...Hhhheell are these guys doing?! Dx" (vast majority of the republican party).



And as said:


-Communism
-Taxes

(both of which, btw, have nothing to do with the definition of democratic and republican...)


Any other good words you can just throw out there as if to say "I'm losing the debate. LOOK THE OTHER WAY!!"

?

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by Longknife

Barbar is actually the German word for barbarian. :V

Oh. Doesn't it have roots in a barking sound though? I do remember that it had something to do with there being a very rude idea that barbarian languages were stupid or something like that.

And I mean it scares me wtf. Technically, I knew the definition of communism, but I've heard it used falsely SOOOOO much, that I began to doubt if I did know it and made this thread. And honestly, I still haven't heard an logical explanation as to why communism is "evil."

Well, there is none. Evil is based on point of view, so there will be no logical explanation. Personally, I don't think it's a terrible philosophy, it's just too idealistic, like so many other philosophies. It starts out fine at first, then people take a little bit of advantage, then more, then *ta da*, it's all out of control.

Plus it's like...when you look at the definition of democratic and republican...I dunno about everyone else, but I'm fine with both, and see a reason to fight for both. Republicans don't want the government having power, simply because yes, that can lead to problems. Democrats don't see the need to worry so much about it and throw trust to the government, and instead try to form the government in such a way that helps make the country run more comfortable/efficiently. That's how I see it.

Germany for instance...some of the things here would scare the shit out of people, and they're probably more on the democratic side. For one, a national ID card. Well...so what? I've got one (technically. I don't have an actual one since this office told me there's no need for an ID card AND a passport, and the passport is basically the same as the ID card). I don't have fear that Germany's gonna use that against me. Why would they? It simply helps the government identify me as some average joe quicker so that I can enter the country/go inside a club/help police realize "nah he di'in't dew eet" and let me continue on my way FASTER. The US would be more republican in this manner, and they still argue against the idea. They don't want the government having a profile on them instantly, cause it makes them feel uncomfortable. Still, this can make some processes longer.
Germany is also trying to take a step against climate change with, yes, government involvement. Dunno the details (haven't heard enough), but from what I understand, Germany has a couple years to find an alternative energy source and start using it, or...too bad: lights go out. No more fossil fuels for Germany. Definitely democratic, as the republican view wouldn't like the government telling them they can't use electricity cause they haven't found a cleaner energy source. (btw, don't worry. Germany's doing pretty good with it. We got wind power out the ass)
Second, another example can be seen in bank accounts. On a more democratic system, all transactions are via bank accounts, you simply give a business permission to take out their monthly payment annually, and trust them not to be stupid and try to rob you. Besides, if they do, I've got the transaction records, and it's only a matter of time til I'll have my money back. More comfortable for the more laid back, but could give some people worries. On a republican system, let's just go ahead and fill out a check every month, rather than just giving a business permission to fiddle with my bank account. More annoying for some, but for others it'll calm some nerves.

Actually, a more republican method would be to do either, by your own choice.

Democratic method (big D Democratic) would be to have companies regulated to taking a certain amount out for certain reasons, and having the government look in to your bank account every once in a while to see what's happening.

For most of us Republican/Libertarian/Constitutional types, a little Democratic ideal is fine, as you say, it has its place. What we fear is that power being extended. The oft overused "slippery slope" phrase. Gah. Hate that phrase.

What it's really like is trying to find out when grey turns into white or black. We can see all three and say, "yup, that's it", but it's impossible to see a shaded bar of the three, and pinpoint exactly where the transition is. As well it should be.

In a big D Democratic society, it's too easy to take it from the black "pedophiles should be registered with the state" to the grey "people who view lolicon should be registered" to the white "people who have these 'pedophilic markers' (read this book, watch that show, hang around kids too much, etc.) should be registered".

Or from "you need a license to drive" to "you need a license to prove your identity in businesses" to "you need to have an I.D. at all times, and be prepared to show it to any government agent".

Basically, we worry that the more people get used to the government "helping out", the more they grow dependent on it, and the less they protest when rights are taken away. Witness the Patriot Act, and ensuing "anti-terrorist legislation". Most of it is, on its surface, fairly reasonable. But, when you put it all together, it's a big step towards the Executive branch doing whatever the hell it wants. Which is a step towards totalitarianism. Which is bad. No matter how you slice it, one person with all the power is bad.

Now, that's not to say that the Constitution is the end-all, be-all of world government. It's a good basis, but it's slightly faulty, just like every other government foundation. They all will be, because humans can't really deal with being human. They're apes, and ape rules are: big ape wins, sneaky ape wins, other apes get fucked in the ass and like it.
It would be like asking dogs to rule via committe. It doesn't work because we're fighting against it inside.

But how is it today? Democrats are hippie pussys who hug trees, republicans are crazy christians who are quick to the trigger. The sad thing is, it's not out of slander...there's some truth to these. I know tons of crazy Christian republicans, and yes, I, a Democrat, don't believe in resorting to war, and I do believe in Global Climate Change; yes it's a theory, but I'd much rather take precautions than daunter and think "meh but it isn't one hundred percent..." I mean c'mon, the last few times when war WAS neccesary, was because Germany had one of their episodes, and they didn't quite understand that bombs don't make for very good gifts, especially when dropped. It seems we've taught Germany to calm down a bit since then. North Korea also seems to be taking his meds lately, and the Middle East....well wtf let them just fight each other and let's just make sure they stay away from us.

Careful with the self-fulfilling prophecy there. There is some truth, but there's some fiction as well. There will be some truth as there's ambiguity enough on both ends for there to be all types of people in there. I'm Libertarian, and I think war is almost always a waste of time, I'm as secular as they come, and I don't own a gun. Used to, just don't see the need right now.

So, yeah, you'll see your stereotype because you're looking for it. What you're doing in the beginning there is like picking out a lazy black man and screaming "SEE?! TOLD YA!" When in reality, what you've found is one lazy black man, most likely drinking with a lazy white man. White shading to black again. We can see the ends, but it's hard to tell when the switch happens.

Really sad but, all these things are losing their meanings. What should be "more comfortable" (democratic) and "more safe" (republican) in my mind has become "Pls don't be telling lies like everyone else...just pls..." (democrats and Obama) and "what...the...Hhhheell are these guys doing?! Dx" (vast majority of the republican party).

Mmmm. Well, lets just say I'm terribly unhappy with my choices this November, and was ever since Ron Paul dropped out.

Again, my view is that we have one big party now, with two different flavors. Both sides are basically identical in policy, Obama keeps drifting towards keeping troops in Iraq, McCain keeps drifting toward more social welfare. Fine, each has its merits, I suppose, but what America is missing right now is a cantakerous asshole who will question everything that the government does. That's what we're set up for, that's what's healthy for America. When the whole process runs smooth, get worried.


And as said:

-Communism
-Taxes

(both of which, btw, have nothing to do with the definition of democratic and republican...)


Any other good words you can just throw out there as if to say "I'm losing the debate. LOOK THE OTHER WAY!!"

?

Liberal
Gay
Islam/Muslim
Creationist
Fundamentalist
New-Ager/Hippy/Tree-hugger

The list goes on, really. Pick a name, you have it. Hell, at this point, pick a word. Doesn't even have to be a noun. Or a verb. Pick an article, be like Clinton. "What's the defenition of 'is' again?"

[LoonyLuna]

The main idea of communism or socialism is that individuals do not exist for their own sake, rather, they exist for the sake of the state, the group, the race, or "society" in general. The opposite is capitalism, which is the idea that every individual has the right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

In practice, communism means the government can tax the hell out of you, regulate prices, interest rates etc., control what you do (banning alcohol, smoking, transfats, prostitution, abortion, etc.). In practice, capitalism means the fruit of your labor belongs to you, and you alone are in control of how to dispose of it, and you can do anything you want as long as all involved parties consent.

Today, both republicans and democrats are socialists: they argue about how the government is going to control your life, but they don't argue about whether it is right for the government to control your life in the first place.

People like to accuse their enemies of being "communist" because it is obvious to everyone that the most communist countries are brutal dictatorships. The funny thing is, they are just as communist, they just convince themselves that somehow, their version of communism will "work out" even though it has failed repeatedly throughout history.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/communism.html

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mWv5VZWlwRQ

[Fipherion]

most of this was tl:dr but I thought that a phrase that my economics professor used to say a lot fits pretty well in this discussion.

"any idea that is fine in theory but not in practice was clearly not a good idea in the first place."

Here's why communism is "evil" it places too much power in the hands of the few. another often-used phrase is "absolute power corrupts absolutely." No man or group of men is capable of running a communist state cleanly. History has shown this. The logical way to deal with this is to spread the power to more people. The economic and political struggles of the ages have been over this balancing act between how much power is allocated to how many people.